HERNANDEZ
v.
VENNING
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendants' notice of removal was insufficient because it failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship.
Plaintiff filed a case in state court, and the defendants removed it to federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. The defendants' notice of remo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Citizenship For Diversity Purposes cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Defendants’ Notice of Removal (Doc. 1).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “[B]ecause a federal court is powerless to act beyond its statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a court must zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case, and should itself raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt about jurisdiction arises.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 286 F. 3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff, Tina Marie Hernandez, filed this case in state court on March 17, 2023. (Doc. 1-1).
Defendants then removed it to this Court, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1).
But Defendants have not sufficiently alleged diversity of citizenship. In the Notice of Removal, Defendants provide the states of residence of Plaintiff and the individual
Defendant, William Douglas Venning. (See Doc. 1 at 2).
However, “[r]esidence alone is not enough” to establish citizenship. Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 736 F. 3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2013). “Citizenship is equivalent to ‘domicile’ for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.” McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F. 3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002). “A person’s domicile is the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom ....” Id. at 1257-58 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mas v. Perry, 489 F. 2d 1396, 1399 (Sth Cir. 1974)). That a party may be a resident of a certain state does not establish that state as his or her domicile.
Thus, the Court cannot discern the citizenships of the individual parties or determine whether the parties are diverse.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that no later than June 9, 2023, Defendants shall file an amended notice of removal identifying the citizenship— not merely the residence—of each party. DONE and ORDERED on May _25, 4
JOHN ANTOON II
nited States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCORMICK v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2002)
- MAS v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974)